Contents

Simplified Yanzipang

I guess you made the changes here as the examples sentences were a few many. However, they are not "quotations" as suggested by the drop-down button, so that doesn't look right either. ---> Tooironic (talk) 11:38, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Mm, indeed they are not quotations. It was for consistency though; several of the preceding usexes used #* formatting. The only thing I don't like is quotations (#*) sandwiched between usexes (#:). —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 01:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Japanese linking template

Hi. I'm considering making a Japanese counterpart of {{zh-l}}. Which format do you think would be better?

I personally like the third one. It's also similar to {{ko-l}} and {{vi-l}}. —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 16:01, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Given that Eirikr has been inactive for a while, what additional parameters do you think will be helpful besides |tr=, |gloss= and |lit= and |note=? I have once seen the elaborate format 青(ao, historically awo) in etymology sections, which suggests the new format あお (青, ao, historically あを, awo), but I'm not sure whether such a format is desirable. Looking at the English etymologies on the wiki, it seems that Old English, Middle English and modern English are never lumped together. A compound formed in Old English is treated as “From Middle English ab, from Old English αβ, from α + β. Surface analysis A + B.” and never “From A (historically α) + B (historically β)” or anachronistically “From A + B”. Given that Old, Middle and modern Japanese have different orthography, I think Japanese should be handled in the same way. --Dine2016 (talk) 04:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dine2016 I prefer the third one as well. So will this be implemented to {{ja-l}} or another separate template? User:Poketalker has been using {{m|ja|漢字|tr=kanji}} for some time so maybe we can have {{ja-m|漢字|かんじ|[[gloss]]}} instead. Not sure if this is going to break {{ja-l}} because so many combinations are possible for that template. Maybe the gloss can be entered using |gloss= in {{ja-l}} ? KevinUp (talk) 08:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@KevinUp: Thanks for the reply. My suggestion is to extend {{ja-l}} in a way that does not break existing usages, and make a {{ja-lx}} which works like {{zh-l}}. The former template only formats its arguments and generates nothing else, while the latter template can support auto-completion such as {{ja-lx|太陽}} → 太陽 (たいよう, taiyō). The latter would be very tricky to implement so I'll probably only do the former I suggest doing the former first. --Dine2016 (talk) 08:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dine2016: Sounds good to me. Some possible combinations for the new format that I could think of (to verify its output):

Good job on the template. For the CSS part, I hope we can make the Japanese script in running text a little bigger (but not too big like the headwords), and use Meiryo instead of MS PGothic on Windows, as the former is optimized for ClearType while the latter embeds bitmaps and does not look good. I remember there is a way to reduce the vertical space of Meiryo, which is used on some Vocaloid-related wikis on Wikia.

Unfortunately, I've lost interest in Japanese once I realized there was no way to eliminate all duplication of information in the source code of Japanese entries. The two “final bosses” which made it impossible, I think, would be: (1) the repetition of the reading in headword templates and (2) the repetition of the inflection type in the headword template and the inflection table. Chinese was able to eliminate the major repetitions because Unified Chinese moved the romanizations to the pronunciation template and there was no inflection. Japanese was not so lucky (although we can follow the French Wiktionary's handling of inflection to eliminate the second problem). --Dine2016 (talk) 11:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

re: repetition: I have wondered if allowing global variables (currently not allowed) would help with this sort of problem. —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 17:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Chinese Postal romanizations

Hey- I saw that you created the Chinkiang page recently, and I was wondering what you thought of my recent spate of postal romanization edits, both in Wiktionary and Wikipedia. Thanks for any pointers. If you look at my contributions, I started doing these edits on the 29th of January. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I believe you should be using {{qualifier|postal romanization}} instead of {{sense|postal romabization}}, but otherwise I have no particular comments ^^ (also, I might have time to fix them myself later) —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 03:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I have just made that change on these pages: GaoyouZhenjiang. I will begin changing them all over to 'qualifier' later today. Please let me know if you develop any other concerns or have suggestions. Thanks! --Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)